Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Viju Abraham dismissed a writ petition seeking to challenge an order issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner. The impugned order directed the petitioners to pay revised minimum wages, calculated in accordance with a government notification applicable to house keeping staff in private hospitals. The Court concluded that the classification of the workers as "cleaners" was not determinative and that the duties performed aligned with those of house keeping staff. The petitioners had contended that the applicable wage notification was one issued for general sweeping and cleaning services, which carried a lower wage rate.

The Court, however, held that the workers were engaged in hospital-related house keeping services, which are governed by a specific minimum wage notification applicable to such institutions. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the labour authority's finding and confirmed that both petitioners—one being the hospital and the other a contracted facility management service—were liable to ensure compliance. The writ petition was dismissed, and the Court directed that any amounts already deposited by the petitioners would be adjusted against the outstanding dues.

Also Read: Unregistered Sale Deeds Based On Revoked Power Of Attorney Cannot Confer Title | Supreme Court Restores Suit Over Disputed Land Transfer

The petition was filed by a private hospital and a facility management company. The first petitioner, Korambayil Hospital & Diagnostics Centre (P) Ltd., had entered into an agreement with the second petitioner, M/s. Housemaster Facility Management Services Pvt. Ltd., to provide cleaning and house keeping services. According to the agreement (Ext.P1), the second petitioner was to supply trained personnel to manage cleanliness and hygiene throughout the hospital premises.’

The second petitioner is an establishment registered under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960. The petitioners relied on a minimum wage notification (Ext.P3) issued by the Government which fixed daily wages for general sweeping and cleaning services in municipality and corporation areas. They contended that since the employees were referred to as "cleaners" and their duties involved cleaning and sweeping, they were paying wages in accordance with Ext.P3.

A subsequent notification (Ext.P4) issued by the Government fixed a different wage scale for private hospitals, including job categories such as "house keeper" under Group 6. The Assistant Labour Officer conducted an inspection and initiated proceedings against the petitioners, resulting in Minimum Wages Application No. 29/2017 before the Deputy Labour Commissioner (2nd respondent).

In response, the petitioners submitted counter statements (Exts.P5, P6, and P7), reiterating their stance that the appropriate notification was Ext.P3. Despite these submissions, the 2nd respondent passed an order (Ext.P8), directing the petitioners to pay Rs. 7,31,679/- as arrears and an equal amount as compensation to 34 employees for the period between October 2015 and March 2016.

The petitioners filed a review petition (Ext.P10) challenging the order, which was rejected on the ground that the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 does not provide for a review mechanism. The rejection of the review petition was not separately challenged.

The Government Pleader contended that under Section 27 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the appropriate Government is empowered to fix minimum wages for scheduled employments. Employment in private hospitals and similar institutions had been included as Serial No.68 in the schedule. Ext.P4 was issued specifically under this classification and included "house keeper" as a job category with a fixed wage scale.

The Government Pleader stated that Ext.P1 itself described the services to be provided as house keeping, including cleanliness and hygiene maintenance across the hospital premises. The duties included cleaning vacated rooms within specific time frames, supervision, and the provision of trained staff for specialized hospital areas such as Operation Theatres and ICUs.

Further, the Government Pleader pointed out that even though the workers were labelled as "cleaners" in the tabular section of Ext.P8, the overall role and responsibilities aligned with those of house keeping staff as per Ext.P4. It was also submitted that under Section 2(e) of the Minimum Wages Act, an "employer" includes any person who employs, whether directly or through another, one or more employees in a scheduled employment.

Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Hindustan Sanitaryware and Industries Limited v. State of Haryana, (2019) 15 SCC 774, where the Court held that contract workers fall within the definition of "employees" and their employer—whether principal or contractor—is liable under the Minimum Wages Act. Paragraph 15 of the said judgment was quoted to support the argument.

The Government Pleader also invoked the constitutional principle of "equal pay for equal work" as articulated in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148. It was argued that paying lesser wages to workers performing identical functions as house keeping staff in hospitals would violate this principle and amount to "exploitative enslavement."

The Court observed in Ext.P8 order there is a clear finding that the employees of the 2nd respondent are doing the job equivalent to that of house keeping staff and on the basis of the same that Ext.P8 order was issued.

The Court noted that although the table in Ext.P8 referred to the employees as "cleaners," the body of the order discussed their responsibilities in terms of house keeping. "The discussion in Ext.P8 order will clearly show that the work undertaken by the employees are similar to that of in a house keeping post."

The Court referred to the agreement (Ext.P1) to examine the nature of employment and stated, "A reading of Ext.P1 would clearly reveal that the agreement was for orderly conduct of the House Keeping activities of the 1st petitioner hospital." The responsibilities under the agreement included training, supervision, conduct in ICUs and OTs, and overall hygiene maintenance.

In regard to the classification of employees, the Court recorded, "Only for the reason that in the table shown in Ext.P8 the employees are termed as 'cleaners', I am not inclined to accept the contentions of the petitioners that the workers were employed as cleaners."

Addressing the issue of employer responsibility, the Court referred to Section 2(e) of the Act, stating, "Employer means any person who employs, whether directly or through another person, or whether on behalf of himself or any other person, one or more employees in any scheduled employment."

The Court cited the judgment in Hindustan Sanitaryware and Industries Limited, quoting, "There is no distinction made between a person employed by the principal employer and a person employed through a contractor." It further stated, "We reject the submission made on behalf of the appellants that the contract workmen are not covered under the Act."

With respect to wage parity, the Court accepted the Government Pleader’s argument, stating, "A person engaged as house keeping staff is entitled for pay fixed as per Ext.P4 and if the same not paid, will be a violation of the principles of 'equal pay for equal work'."

The Court relied on Jagjit Singh to observe, "An employee engaged for the same work cannot be paid less than another who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State." It continued, "Any act of paying less wages as compared to others similarly situate constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position."

Also Read: Kerala High Court Rejects MSME Trader’s Plea For Quality Control Exemption | Court Rules Retailers’ Registration Limited To Priority Lending | No Relief For Plywood Import Without BIS Certification

Regarding the review petition, the Court stated, "There is no provision in the Act for reviewing the order passed by the authority and stating so the petition has been dismissed and the same has been communicated to the petitioners."

The Court concluded that "Taking into consideration, the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the findings in Ext.P8 order is not liable to be interfered with."

The Court dismissed the writ petition and recorded, "Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with Ext.P8 order and the writ petition is accordingly, dismissed."

It was further directed, "However, it is made clear that any amount deposited by the petitioners shall be given due credit to by the authorities while initiating further action in the matter."

This affirmed the enforceability of Ext.P8 order which mandated payment of arrears and compensation totalling Rs. 14,63,358/- to 34 employees.

Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Sri. Naveen T, Kum. Chithra Chandrasekharan, Sri. V.S. Abhishek, Shri. Biji A Manikoth, Shri. Shibu Joseph Kottayil
For the Respondents: Government Pleader, Asok M. Cherian (Addl. Advocate General), Smt. Sabeena P. Ismail

Case Title: Korambayil Hospital & Diagnostics Centre (P) Ltd. and Another v. State of Kerala and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:42042
Case Number: WP(C). No.34023 of 2022
Bench: Justice Viju Abraham